Monday, May 06, 2013

The moral argument.

Both
sides of the debate on whether the battle between Parliament and the
Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) regarding the demand by
Parliamentarians to have their salaries and perks renewed to the levels
enjoyed by the Tenth Parliament are instructive. Mithika Linturi and
Justin Muturi, among other parliamentarians, rely on the provisions of
the Constitution and the law of Kenya to make their case. In some
aspects, their arguments are persuasive. The other side, too, relies on
the Constitution, and their arguments, too, are persuasive. However, it
is when interested parties such as the Confederation of Trade Unions
(COTU) and the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) enter the fray
that things get murky.

Francis Atwoli, COTU's Secretary-General,
is adamant that he does not support a pay-rise for parliamentarians; he
merely worries that if the SRC can "cut down" the pay of
parliamentarians, it might set the stage for "unconstitutional" cuts in
workers' pay, whether in the public or private sectors. This is the same
fear that Wilson Sossion of KNUT echoes; he states that if the SRC can
reduce the MPs' pay, they can do the same for the hundreds of thousands
of teachers in the union, even where a Collective Bargaining Agreement
has been struck between the union and the government regarding the
pay-and-benefits of teachers.

Some have attempted to argue their
case in moral terms, on both sides of the debate. On this ground alone,
the MPs do not have a leg to stand on. Nicholas Gumbo, an engineer
representing Rarieda Constituency, attempts to argue that MPs work even
when they are asleep. They receive so many monetary claims that it would
be immoral for the SRC to cut their pay to such an amount that they
cannot contribute to the medical and funeral expenses, among many
others, of their constituents. He argues that the representation
provided by the MP extends beyond making the case in Parliament; that
MPs when they go about their duties, work long hours and cover many
expenses that the proposals by the SRC amount to interfering with MPs'
mandates to represent their peoples.

Okiya Omtatah, the
indefatigable civil society activist who has gone to court to challenge
the move by Parliament to raise their pay-and-perks to pre-March 2013
levels, argues that MPs have the option of challenging the SRC decision
in the High Court. He also points out that MPs' pay-and-perks amount to
over a million shillings, quite above what the Tenth Parliament enjoyed,
which was around sh 850,000. He points out that it is unconstitutional
for MPs to determine their pay-and-perks: that is the preserve of the
SRC, an independent constitutional commission. Any MP who feels
aggrieved by the decision of the SRC can only challenge it in court, not
by passing motions after motions in Parliament.

The moral angle
of the debate must be pursued to its logical conclusion, though. The
difference between MPs and other workers is that MPs actively sought the
votes of their constituents in order to sit in the august house. The
qualifications to be elected as an MP are set out in the Constitution
and the Elections Act. For the most part, they revolve around moral
issues, rather than technical ones. MPs, despite their arguments, are
not the same as other workers. It is for this reason, and the history of
MPs' demands over the years, that when Kenyans ratified the Constitution
in 2010, they did so knowing that the Constitution would prevent MPs
from setting their own terms and conditions of office. MPs had abused
that privilege and Kenyans were united in agreeing with the Committee of
Experts' position, that an independent body would review and set the
terms and conditions of service for MPs. It is immoral for the MPs to
argue that they can usurp a power that the people of Kenya granted
specifically to the SRC. It is immoral for them to demand a class or
status that they do not deserve; the Constitution proclaims the people
to be supreme, sovereign; it is improper for MPs to declare that they
are supreme, sovereign above the people they must serve.

In a
nation where millions go hungry daily, and in a nation where hundreds of
thousands live under the fear of starvation or banditry attacks, MPs
receiving millions per month have no moral basis for demanding more from
the same people when they have security and food on the table in some
of the finest establishments in Kenya. Where is it written that they
must purchase homes in Nairobi or that they must swan around in swanky
limousines paid for by hardworking Kenyans? They could live in rented
houses and drive the shit-boxes hundreds of thousands of Kenyans have to
make do with. If they are dissatisfied with the terms and conditions
that the SRC has laid out for them, and they think that they deserve the
millions they are demanding, perhaps it is time they resigned their
seats and took their chances in the harsh world of private enterprise.